A Scientific Study in Radical Islam

[IvanKaramozov]

Interesting Article from Gallop.

media.gallup.com/WorldPoll/PDF/GALLUP+MUSLIM+STUDIES_Moderate+v+Extremist+Views_11.13.06_FINAL.pdf

“Generally, the radical group is characterized by a sense of political frustration and the feeling that
Muslims are both humiliated and threatened by the West. The result is a greater sense of urgency to
protect their cultural identity – and thus, the justification of extremist means as well as a great deal of willingness to make extreme sacrifices. Not surprisingly, political radicals are far more likely than
moderates to say it is “completely justifiable” to sacrifice one’s life for a cause one believes in.
On the other hand, political radicals were no less likely than moderates to say that better relations with the
West concerned them. And while radicals had (by definition) unfavorable opinions of the United States,
they had relatively neutral to favorable opinions of Germany and France. This again suggests that
extremist views are motivated less by cultural opposition to Western values, and more by specific policies that seem to threaten Islamic ways of life.”

“Perhaps most telling is the fact that, in response to the open-ended question, “What is your greatest fear?”,
the most frequent response among political radicals was “occupation/U.S. domination,” while among
moderates, it was concern about economic issues.
This sense of Western encroachment seemed to extend beyond political domination to religious and
cultural identity. While moderates and radicals both feel that Islam is disrespected by the West (only 16%
of moderates, and 12% of political radicals associated “respecting Islamic values” with Western nations),
political radicals appear more likely to feel that Islam is not only degraded, but threatened. Among the
radical group, the idea that Western nations should “refrain from interfering or imposing its beliefs and
policies” was a common response to the open-ended question about improving relations with the West,
second only to the need for Westerners to “respect Islam.” The moderates also express this sentiment, but it is a bit more muted and surpassed by a request for more basic needs such as economic development.”

Now, my question is this.

Why, given the emperical data, do people insist this is a religious conflict rather than a political one?

 

[LaMar]

Why, given the emperical data, do people insist this is a religious conflict rather than a political one?

You have to blame Usama ibn-Ladin for the religious interpretation.

President Bush and other Western politicians have consistently described this war as one against terrorists. It’s not a war against Arabs, or against Muslims in general, both of whom have been repeatedly encouraged to join the West in a struggle against our common enemy.

For Usama, and those who follow him, it is a war against infidels. Not only against “the Jews and the crusaders”, but also against liberal Muslims, who Usama feels he can excommunicate unilaterally, and declare as non-Muslims on his own authority.

 

[Sister_Amy]

Welcome back, IvanKaramozov! Nice post.

 

[IvanKaramozov]

You have to blame Usama ibn-Ladin for the religious interpretation.

Certianly, I would never wish to deminish his guilt, however the current conflicts and war in the middleeast exceed him and his movement.

I am refering to the sect of the population who view the conflicts at large between the Middle East and West as primairly a religious struggle, while religious language and justifications are used, I think the data points to the primary motivation as being political/social/economic rather than religious.

President Bush and other Western politicians have consistently described this war as one against terrorists. It’s not a war against Arabs, or against Muslims in general, both of whom have been repeatedly encouraged to join the West in a struggle against our common enemy.

Certianly

For Usama, and those who follow him, it is a war against infidels. Not only against “the Jews and the crusaders”, but also against liberal Muslims, who Usama feels he can excommunicate unilaterally, and declare as non-Muslims on his own authority.

I certianly agrea.

 

[IvanKaramozov]

Welcome back, IvanKaramozov! Nice post.

Thank you, I needed to regroup for a bit: )

 

[Sister_Amy]

I’ve been thinking… I really don’t think that people get involved with the conflict except for political reasons. People follow the religion is mass numbers while hating terrorism, extremism, and justifiably so–they have scriptures and teachings to condemn it.

But people who use the religion to support the conflict only do so with a primary political motivation.

Even the rhetoric of Osama bin Laden begins pretty much with politics. He tries to add a religious flare to charge it up a little more but still, it’s just politics.

That’s what I think.

 

[LaMar]

Certianly, I would never wish to deminish his guilt, however the current conflicts and war in the middleeast exceed him and his movement.

I am refering to the sect of the population who view the conflicts at large between the Middle East and West as primairly a religious struggle, while religious language and justifications are used, I think the data points to the primary motivation as being political/social/economic rather than religious.

I don’t know as much about this as you do, but one of the central themes of Islam seems to be tolerance for a conquered people, combined with a prohibition against declaring another Muslim a heretic based on ideas alone.

Both of these ideals, which have existed since Islam was first revealed, seem to have been reversed by a guy named Said Qutb. I was talking to someone else about that fellow a couple of weeks ago. I suspect he might have been a bright guy who took some Marxist-Leninist ideas about revolution and hegemony and false consciousness, and reconstructed Islam around them.

Usama is a direct ideological descendant of this fellow (he was executed in Egypt 40 years ago).

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sayyid_Qutb

It’s almost as though a few Muslims have started a new religion, with completely new rules, and a new outlook. They have given Marxist terms (hegemony and commodity fetishism and a dozen others) Islamic names, and are advocating for a worldwide revolution. In itself, this would not be confusing, except for the fact that the practitioners of the new faith still call themselves Muslims, and actually have the audacity to kill the traditional Muslims as “heretics”, despite the fact that they seem to be pursuing the innovation.

Before I started reading up on this stuff I knew almost nothing about Islam (I don’t claim to know a whole lot now) but I know a fair amount about Marxist-Leninist philosophy, and when I read Qutb, or hear speeches by Usama, I see a lot of very familiar concepts. It’s almost as though Lukacs and Gramsci have been resurrected as propagandists for Al-Quaida.

 

[Sister_Amy]

LaMar, have you seen the documentary called “The Power of Nightmares?” I think you can find it online. It has some interesting points about Qutb’s influence and such.

 

[LaMar]

LaMar, have you seen the documentary called “The Power of Nightmares?” I think you can find it online. It has some interesting points about Qutb’s influence and such.

I watched it last night – or at least I had it running in the back ground as I did other things – and it was pretty interesting. Thanks!

It compared the Muslim Brothers to the neo-Conservatives, which is also an interesting comparison and overlaps in some little ways with what I was talking about.

If you’re interested in this stuff, and you don’t have a bunch of time to read Marxist-Leninist esoterica (much of which is very deep and most people would be bored to tears with it), just compare Qutb’s ideas of jahiliyah with:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commodity_fetishism
As a consequence of commodity fetishism, the basic political issues involved in social relationships are obscured, from both exploiter and exploited. Commodity fetishism ensures that neither side is fully conscious of the political positions they occupy. Hence the commodity can be seen as the basic unit of social relations in Capitalism. It is important to remember, as philosoper Slavoj Zizek points out, we cannot see the commodity fetish as simply an illusion to be dispelled by critical awareness, it is instead a concrete unit of social reproduction. In Capital, this argument is presented by tracing the formal aspect of a commodity, its value, from the most abstract model possible towards more concrete, real life models. This method of analysis owes much to Hegel, is densely written, and proves highly resistant to summarization.

Same underlying strategic thoughts, compounded to form a single idea. Only the definitions are different. Qutb took existing political and economic theory and translated it into religious ideals.

I have to wonder whether he was a Marxist-Leninist who was trying to communize the Arab world, or whether he was an Arab nationalist trying to adopt what he saw as a winning strategy from the socialists. Either way the ideas are too similar to have erupted independently. (That’s just my casual opinion, but I’m sticking with it).

Edited to add: Read Qutb’s Milestones if you don’t read anything else. It’s interesting and there’s a coherent English translation that’s available.

 

[Sister_Amy]

I’m sorry, that kind of deep discussion about political ideologies is… well it’s over my head, sorry.

I thought I would tell you though, that I have in my possession only one book by Sayyid Qutb and it is a translation of the last juz of In the Shade of the Qur’an. This is supposed to be a so-called “modern tafisr” but frankly I don’t think it’s that interesting or astute, and would rather myself read classical, traditional tafisr (commentary) which is based more soundly on Islamic traditions. Just my opinion though, fwiw.

 

[LaMar]

I’m sorry, that kind of deep discussion about political ideologies is… well it’s over my head, sorry.

You’re a very smart lady, but I understand it’s boring to most people. I’ll simplify, in case you, or anyone else, is interested.

Remember how the movie (Power of Nightmares) mentioned that Qutb felt that the people in Colorado imagined they were free, but were actually enslaved? Qutb felt that he needed to start a revolution to free people, so that they could realize they were enslaved.

The movie didn’t say as much, but this is a Marxist idea, which didn’t originally have anything to do with religion.

Marx and Engels predicted that people would eventually be so enslaved by capitalism that they would revolt spontaneously, and take control of the means of production.

When this didn’t happen, Marxist philosophers assumed Marx might have made a mistake. Two different men (Antonio Gramsci, in Italy, and Georg Lucaks, in Hungary) proposed similar answers for the failure of Communism to take hold in the West.

The problem, according to modern Marxist-Leninists, is not that people are free under capitalism, but that people are so alienated by the capitalist system that they imagine it is all they have.

It is analogous to American slaves in the South, many of whom did not want to leave their masters’ plantations after they were emancipated. They could not conceive of a world in which they would write their own history. Some of them starved to death in the woods, just because they didn’t know how to live as free people.

It’s the same with us, who live in capitalist societies. People get used to having someone tell them what to do. They get comfortable with someone to order them around. If they were set free, it would be terrifying. They would have no idea how to function. If the government disappeared, society might collapse. Why? Most of us get along fine without being interfered with by the government or the police. It is a psychological matter.

So, psychologically, people construct a false consciousness which redefines freedom as existing where it doesn’t. They imagine relationships where none exist, and set themselves at odds with people who would naturally be their allies.

The answer, in Marxist-Leninist terms, is for an armed cadre (like a Communist party) to forcibly liberate the great masses of people. Marxist theory supposes that at first, the people will need to have masters from the working class, because civilization would break down if a group of slaves were just turned loose. This temporary transition is called the dictatorship of the proletariat. This lasts only long enough for power to be decentralized and depoliticized. Eventually, you will have local communities working cooperatively, with workers owning their own enterprises, and public ownership of things like utilities and transportation. By this time, the common people will be truly free, and have a sense of class consciousness. Then these free people will export the revolutionary process to other nations, leading to worldwide socialism.

When you read Said Qutb, you see this same plan, described in the same way, only promoting a radical form of Islam. Qutb describes false consciousness as jahiliyah. He feels that the answer to people’s spiritual enslavement is a revolution, just like the Marxists feel this is the answer to the economic enslavement of humankind. He built an armed cadre (he took over the Muslim Brothers) and attempted to overthrow the government of Egypt. He felt that if shari’a was introduced it would open the minds of the people who lived under it. Eventually, the people in the shari’a society would be truly free, and could see clearly. They would then go out to other nations, help the armed vanguards there, and spread the process elsewhere, which would lead to an eventual worldwide system of shari’a.

If you call shari’a “communism”, and jahiliyah “false consciousness”, you can switch from Marx to Qutb without any trouble.

There is much more to it than that, but this is a rough example of what I mean. Qutb went to school in America, so he read Marx as a matter of course, but he was a very bright guy to have translated the ideas so succinctly into the Islamic cultural structure.

Salaam,

LaMar

 

[planten]

I don’t know as much about this as you do, but one of the central themes of Islam seems to be tolerance for a conquered people, combined with a prohibition against declaring another Muslim a heretic based on ideas alone.

Both of these ideals, which have existed since Islam was first revealed, seem to have been reversed by a guy named Said Qutb. I was talking to someone else about that fellow a couple of weeks ago. I suspect he might have been a bright guy who took some Marxist-Leninist ideas about revolution and hegemony and false consciousness, and reconstructed Islam around them.

Usama is a direct ideological descendant of this fellow (he was executed in Egypt 40 years ago).

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sayyid_Qutb

It’s almost as though a few Muslims have started a new religion, with completely new rules, and a new outlook. They have given Marxist terms (hegemony and commodity fetishism and a dozen others) Islamic names, and are advocating for a worldwide revolution. In itself, this would not be confusing, except for the fact that the practitioners of the new faith still call themselves Muslims, and actually have the audacity to kill the traditional Muslims as “heretics”, despite the fact that they seem to be pursuing the innovation.

Before I started reading up on this stuff I knew almost nothing about Islam (I don’t claim to know a whole lot now) but I know a fair amount about Marxist-Leninist philosophy, and when I read Qutb, or hear speeches by Usama, I see a lot of very familiar concepts. It’s almost as though Lukacs and Gramsci have been resurrected as propagandists for Al-Quaida.

** Very correct. Syed Qutub was one of the Ikhwan in Egypt. he was quite a learned person and he wrote teh commentary of the Quran called “In the Shadows of the quran”. I have not seen it nor read it.

These people were preaching for Jihad with the weapons to spread or establish Islam or regain the Islamic supermacy. He was not the only one of that Kind. There were others in India in 1930’s who, under British rule, preached similar Jihad. One of them was Maudoodi. He wote a book in 1928 A.D. teaching the philosophy of Jihad to the Muslims (with the swords i.e. weapons). He even wrote that Islam was spread by the use of sword.

That was all wrong teaching. there was no need topick any querrel with any one and specially there was no need (not allowed) to fight for the sake of religion. But they had the mind and the urge. I may explain it in a short and simple way as follows:

The condition of the present Muslims is exactly the same as that of the Jews in the time of Jesus. As the Jews were subjugated (under Roman rule), so are most of the Muslim countries. The knowhow o fthe present day Muslim is just like the knowledge of the Jews in the days of Jesus.

Every one is teaching the Muslims something difficult. They do not have any spiritual leader. So they have to suffer. There will be many Bin Laden, no doubt. That is not real Islam. The Muslims are fighting on many fronts but all for the wrong things.

They want to enforce the Sharia law in their countries. But there no unity and there are many sects in islam. All have theri own Sharia, difefrent to the others. So it is impossible to enforce the Sharia. It is also not necessary to enforce Sharia. In the Quran it is written “When you rule amongst the people then rule with justice.” It does not say rule with Sharia.
Also there are many other complications in their call for the Sharia. Take the case of pakistan or bangladesh. If the Muslims enforce their law of Sharia in their countries then India is justified to enforce its Hindu law in India. What will happen? Persecution of every Hindu and Muslim in the area.

There is another big reason why the Sharia should not be enforced. Sharia is very good and useful. But that is if the people understand it. The Muslims do not understand the Sharia. They follow wrong notions, oppress people for nothing, they do not allow any Muslim to change his religion, and so many other things. There is a long list of such faults.

There is no way for the Muslims to live in peace and respect the sacular systems now found in most countries. They have to learn a lot from manynations in order to survive. They have hadbad teachers for a very long time and made every one to suffer humilation and defeat. The Muslims have brought a bad name to Islam. They have to repent and ask forgiveness from Allah for their sins.
I do not know if I have been on the topic or may have discussed meaningless things.**

 

[Sister_Amy]

Thanks for that explanation LaMar… I think I get it now.

 

[LaMar]

** They follow wrong notions, oppress people for nothing, they do not allow any Muslim to change his religion, and so many other things. There is a long list of such faults.

There is no way for the Muslims to live in peace and respect the sacular systems now found in most countries. They have to learn a lot from manynations in order to survive. They have hadbad teachers for a very long time and made every one to suffer humilation and defeat. The Muslims have brought a bad name to Islam. They have to repent and ask forgiveness from Allah for their sins.
I do not know if I have been on the topic or may have discussed meaningless things.**

No, I understand and appreciate those sentiments.

The people who oppress others really ought to call their religion by some new name. At least as I study Islam, from the perspective of a non-Muslim, it looks like it is a completely different religion contrasted with the religious values laid down by the messenger (saw) originally.

The terrorists who claim to be Muslims look, to me, like they might want to call themselves “the highway robbers” or maybe “the mercenaries” or something like that. This would be a more honest name for their new religion. They are not submitting to the will of God and His messenger (saw). They only adopt the name of Islam as camouflage, while they attack other people (most often the victims are the real Muslims, such as those in Iraq who are killed and maimed in bombings on a daily basis)

 

[Ridgerunner]

Very interesting reads provided by all of the above posters. I wouldn’t argue with any of it.

However, I do wonder about one additional item. My thinking about this is not well formulated, so I hope you’ll bear with me.

Islam is a profoundly Middle Eastern relgion. Its heart is there and its thinking is necessarily Middle Eastern even in places like Indonesia.

Their “high water mark” was the Caliphate, when Islam at least seemed in retrospect to be united, advanced and prosperous.

Then came the Central Asians; Turks, Mongols, Turks again, Turks again, and just devastated it. Turned it in to a backwater so total that the West pretty much ignored it for centuries. (The Turks are a different thing; being Islamic in a way, but not in quite the same way, and with a strong strain of resistance to clerical Islam within it. I will always think Mustafa Kemal was agnostic, if not an atheist.)

But everywhere where Islam is significant, that “golden era” beckons. If I were a Middle Eastern person (other than the merchant class, and some of them are world class) I would be very uneasy about the fact that the recent resurgence of Islam is totally dependant on a commodity; oil. I would be very aware of the fly-blown poverty and ignorance that prevailed in the “heart of Islam” for centuries. A return to that would worry me. I would see a resurgent China and India; a resurgence that might mean recapture of their former glory. I would see a West with infrastructure, technology and sytemization that I might well despair of achieving. Whatever I might have thought of Saddam, I would have been shocked in the first Gulf War. The utter incompetence of Middle Eastern military might, seemingly resurgent until then, was laid bare. Upwards of a million Iranians died in the Iran-Iraq war, yet the West knocked Iraq down in hours with almost no causualties. I would be at least mildly aware that Turkey is still there, with some of the toughest and most cruel troops that ever held a weapon; a Turkey that actually does have technological accomplishments, and without a drop of oil. I would be aware of the Russians and the Chinese; heirs of the Mongols in a way. And I would be well aware that the West got the Middle East out of Turkish domination. I would be aware that the West actually is pretty benign. But I would also be aware that the West will turn its back on the M.E. the minute oil is not so important. And there goes any chance for a return of the “golden era”.

Who would I blame? I can’t blame Islam. I can’t blame myself. I can’t blame my culture. I can’t blame the Turks or the Mongols, neither of which has ever shown compassion or is likely to do so. Certainly, I can’t strike out at them for fear of dire consequences. I would blame the West because it, alone, listens, and it, alone, can be expected to act in a relatively humane fashion in response to my hitting out in my rage. That’s why they go on and on about the Crusades, which did little to them, and don’t say anything about Turks and Mongols, who really tore their civilization apart.

There are better voices. There are people in the M.E. who can compete in a world theater. But there are a lot who have nothing but puzzlement and Islam.

Again, pretty random stuff, and not scientific. But there’s something in all that that makes me think it’s there in a big way.

 

[AgnosTheist]

I’ve been thinking… I really don’t think that people get involved with the conflict except for political reasons.

REMINDER: Islam is Politics.

 

[AgnosTheist]

A Washington Post/ABC News poll conducted in March 2006, for example, found that a full third of Americans – 33% – believe mainstream Islam encourages violence
against non-Muslims.

Muslim Apostates are technically considered as “Non-Muslims”.

Amy here agrees that Islam teaches death to Apostates.

 

[Sister_Amy]

I try not to put words in your mouth, AgnosTheist, and I would appreciate the same courtesy.

 

[AgnosTheist]

I try not to put words in your mouth, AgnosTheist, and I would appreciate the same courtesy.

here let me put your very own words back into your very own mouth

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=223275&highlight=apostates

The death penalty for apostasy in Islam is nothing other than a treason law. That’s exactly and only what it is.

You all know I’m sure the Qur’anic injunction that “there is no compulsion in religion.” You cannot force someone to believe. It is not someone’s change of beliefs which is the problem–it is switching sides in a conflict. Remember how Islam involves a system of government? This is part of it.

If there is no Islamic state–and by that I mean khalifa (caliphate)–then there is NO AUTHORITY to implement the death penalty for apostasy.

It is a treason law, and only applies in such cases as the apostasy is equivalent as treason. A Muslim becoming Catholic in America does not fall under this law.

 

[Sister_Amy]

Allow me:

It is a treason law, and only applies in such cases as the apostasy is equivalent as treason. A Muslim becoming Catholic in America does not fall under this law.